The European Union's Blind Eye How the EU ignores Israel's failure to fulfill its obligations under EU agreements

Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Compiled by David Morrison

26 October 2008

A report by the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign

The IPSC was established in 2001 by established Irish human rights and community activists, academics and journalists who were deeply concerned with the developing situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. In partnership with Palestinians living in Ireland, the IPSC was formed to provide a voice for Palestine in Ireland and in Europe.

The IPSC is an independent, non-party political organisation, run byvolunteers committed to a just and sustainable peace in the Middle East.

The IPSC campaigns for justice for the Palestinian people, through raising public awareness about Israel's human rights abuses in the occupied territories, violations of international law and the historical causes of the injustices to the Palestinians that lie at the heart of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

ON 1 SEPTEMBER 2008, the EU decided that meetings with Russia about a
new partnership agreement would be postponed "until [Russian] troops
have withdrawn to the positions held prior to 7 August", that is, until
the Russian military occupation of Georgia (outside South Ossetia and
Abkhazia, at least) had ended.

On 28 November 1995, the EU allowed Israel to become a partner, under
Euro-Mediterranean Partnership arrangements with states bordering on the
Mediterranean. At the time, Israeli troops were occupying parts of
Lebanon and Syria and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (the West
Bank and Gaza) and had been for many years – Lebanon since 1978, the
rest since 1967.

Clearly, the EU has applied very different standards in its relations
with Israel and Russia. Had the conditions applied to Russia in
September 2008 been applied to Israel in November 1995, the EU would
have refused to enter into negotiation with Israel about becoming a
partner until all Israeli troops had been withdrawn from Lebanon, Syria
and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

THERE IS ANOTHER extraordinary aspect to the EU’s relations with Israel
– the EU has been happy to sign agreements with Israel even though, at
the time of signing, Israel has been contravening obligations contained
in the agreements themselves.

For example, the Barcelona Declaration, which established the
Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, obliges its signatories to "respect the
territorial integrity and unity of each of the other partners" and a
series of other norms of international law.

Lebanon, Syria and Israel signed the Barcelona Declaration and became EU
partners in November 1995. At that time, parts of Lebanon and
Syria were under Israeli military occupation and the Golan Heights had
been annexed by Israel. Clearly, Israel was failing to "respect
the territorial integrity and unity" of its Lebanese and Syrian partners
in 1995, when it signed the Barcelona Declaration containing this
obligation. But the EU turned a blind eye to Israel’s breach of
the partnership agreement at the time it signed the partnership
agreement – and allowed it to become an EU partner.

And the EU has continued to turn a blind eye ever since and allowed
Israel to remain an EU partner, even though today Syrian and Lebanese
territory remains under Israeli military occupation and Israeli military
aircraft frequently invade Lebanese air space.

THE EU HAS ENTERED into a number of agreements with Israel, beginning
with the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership signed in November 1995.
These agreements oblige the parties to them, including Israel, to abide
by generally recognised principles of international law.

It is our contention that Israel has been, and still is, guilty of
contravening generally recognised principles of international law in a
variety of ways, contrary to its obligations in agreements with the EU.
We document some of these contraventions in this submission. But
the EU has continuously turned a blind eye to these contraventions and,
despite them, continuously enhanced its relations with Israel, most
recently, on 16 June 2008.

As we have said, under the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership Israel is
required to "respect the territorial integrity and unity" of its
partners, which Israel has failed to do throughout the life of the
Partnership in respect of Lebanon and Syria – since it has occupied
parts of their territory militarily. Under the Euro-Mediterranean
Partnership Israel is also required to "act in accordance with the
United Nations Charter", which Israel has signally failed to do
throughout the life of the Partnership – since it continues to
contravene more UN Security Council resolutions than any other state in
the world. The EU has turned a blind eye to these failures by
Israel and been happy to maintain Israel as a partner.

THE ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT with Israel, under the Euro-Mediterranean
Partnership, commonly known as the Euro-Med Agreement, gives Israel
privileged access to the EU market. According to Article 2
of the Agreement, "respect for human rights and democratic principles"
is an "essential element" – not an optional element, nor a desirable
element, but an essential element.

There isn’t the slightest doubt that Israel has continuously failed to
live up to these obligations, the most recent example being its economic
strangulation of the people of Gaza in 2007/8, which the EU itself
described as "collective punishment", contrary to international
humanitarian law. But the EU has again turned a blind eye to
abuses of international humanitarian law by Israel and refused to
contemplate a suspension of the Agreement until such times as Israel
meets its obligations.

SINCE 1995, ISRAEL has been an EU partner in the European Neighbourhood
Policy (ENP). Here again, Israel is supposed to take steps to
promote and protect the rights of the Arab minority in Israel and to
move towards a comprehensive settlement of the conflict in the Middle
East. Here is the conclusion of a European Commission report on
Israeli progress published in April 2008.

"Issues raised in the framework of the political dialogue included inter
alia: the peace process, the situation in the Middle East, the situation
of the Arab minority in Israel, restrictions of movement in West Bank
and Gaza Strip, the construction of the separation barrier,
administrative detentions, the dismantling of outposts, the envisaged
expansion of certain Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem, more
checkpoints. Little concrete progress has however been achieved on the
issues as such."

Once again, the EU turned a blind eye to Israel’s failure to make
progress and decided on 16 June 2008 to "upgrade" its relations with
Israel.

1The Euro-Mediterranean Partnership

Section 1 outlines some of the key terms of the Barcelona
Declaration, which established the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership.
It shows that Israel was already in breach of obligations under the
Declaration at the time of signing and has continued to be in breach
ever since. It points out that the EU lays down very different
standards for partnership with Russia and Israel – Israeli military
occupation is not a bar to an EU partnership. It contrasts the
EU’s concern about Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons with its lack of
concern for Israel’s very real nuclear weapons. Finally, Israel’s
breaches of the Declaration today are described.

1.1 The Barcelona Declaration

The most important development in the EU’s relations with Israel (see
Appendix A) occurred in November 1995, with the signing of the Barcelona
Declaration
[1], which established the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership
[2].
This Partnership encompassed 15 EU states plus 11 states in the
Mediterranean region (Algeria, Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon,
Malta, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey) and the Palestinian
Authority.

The Barcelona Declaration set up what it describes as "a comprehensive
partnership among the participants" and the participants undertook to
behave according to international norms in their relations with other
states, promising to

"act in accordance with the United Nations Charter and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, as well as other obligations under
international law, in particular those arising out of regional and
international instruments to which they are party;"

The participants also entered into a number of specific obligations in
respect of their "partners" in the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, for
example, to:

(1) "refrain, in accordance with the rules of international law,
from any direct or indirect intervention in the internal affairs of
another partner;"

(2) "respect the territorial integrity and unity of each of the
other partners;"

(3) "settle their disputes by peaceful means, call upon all participants
to renounce recourse to the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity of another participant, including the acquisition
of territory by force, and reaffirm the right to fully exercise
sovereignty by legitimate means in accordance with the UN Charter and
international law;"

1.2 Israeli breaches of the
Barcelona Declaration in 1995

In 1995, when Israel signed the Barcelona Declaration and undertook to
abide by these principles, so did Lebanon and Syria. At that time,
Israel was occupying parts of Lebanon and Syria militarily and it had
annexed the Syrian Golan Heights. By no stretch of the imagination
could it be said that Israel was refraining from intervention in the
internal affairs of its Lebanese and Syrian partners, or respecting
their territorial integrity, or settling disputes with them by peaceful
means. Manifestly, Israel was contravening obligations (1), (2) &
(3) in the Barcelona Declaration, at the time it signed the Barcelona
Declaration.

At that time, Israel was also in breach of the general obligation in the
Barcelona Declaration to "act in accordance with the United Nations
Charter". It was in military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza
(as well as parts of Lebanon and Syria) contrary to Article 2.4 of the
UN Charter (see Appendix B). Also, Article 25 of the UN Charter
requires UN member states "to accept and carry out the decisions of the
Security Council" [3].
In 1995, Israel was in violation of some 25 Security Council resolutions
requiring action by it and it alone (see Appendix C). These
demanded, amongst other things, that Israel

· cease building Jewish
settlements in the occupied territories, including in Jerusalem

· reverse its annexation
of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights

· open its nuclear
facilities to IAEA inspection.

President Bush told the UN General Assembly on 12 September 2002:

"We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and
successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important
multilateral body to be enforced."

There is no excuse for Israel failing to implement "the resolutions of
the world's most important multilateral body".

Manifestly, Israel was contravening the general obligation in the
Barcelona Declaration to "act in accordance with the United Nations
Charter", at the time it signed the Barcelona Declaration.

So, the EU was happy to make Israel a partner in 1995, even though at
that time Israel was in contravention of the terms of the partnership,
as set out in the Barcelona Declaration. The EU simply turned a
blind eye to Israel’s contravention of obligations in the partnership
agreement at the time it signed the partnership agreement – and allowed
it to become an EU partner.

That is an extraordinary stance for the EU to adopt.

1.3 EU double standards
vis-ŕ-vis Israel and Russia

In September 2008, the EU decided that meetings with Russia about a new
partnership agreement would be postponed "until [Russian] troops have
withdrawn to the positions held prior to 7 August"
[4], that is, until the Russian military occupation of Georgia
(outside South Ossetia and Abkhazia, at least) had ended.

In November 1995, the EU allowed Israel to become a partner, at a time
when Israeli troops were occupying parts of Lebanon and Syria and the
Occupied Palestinian Territories (the West Bank and Gaza) and had been
for many years – Lebanon since 1978, the rest since 1967. Had the
conditions applied to Russia in September 2008 been applied to Israel in
November 1995, the EU would have refused to enter into negotiation with
Israel about becoming a partner until all Israeli troops had been
withdrawn from Lebanon, Syria and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Clearly, the EU has applied very different standards in its relations
with Israel and Russia. On the one hand, Israel was allowed to
become an EU partner in 1995, even though large swathes of territory not
its own had been under Israeli military occupation for many years, and
is allowed to remain a partner even though most of this territory
remains under Israeli military occupation today. By contrast,
Russia is not allowed to enter into negotiation about a partnership with
the EU without ending its month long occupation of parts of Georgia.

What possible justification can there be for the EU applying such
extraordinarily different standards to Israel and Russia?

1.4 EU double standards
vis-ŕ-vis Israel and Iran

In the Barcelona Declaration, Israel also signed up to the following:

"The parties shall pursue a mutually and effectively verifiable Middle
East Zone free of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical and
biological, and their delivery systems.

"Furthermore the parties will consider practical steps to prevent the
proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as well as
excessive accumulation of conventional arms."

Israel is the only state in the Middle East that possesses nuclear
weapons (and probably the only one that possesses chemical and
biological weapons). So, its disarmament of these weapons is a
necessary, and probably a sufficient, condition for bringing about a
"Middle East Zone free of weapons of mass destruction", as required by
the Barcelona Declaration. However, progress in bringing this
about has been noticeable by its absence since Israel signed up to
"pursue" this objective in 1995.

There has been no progress either on the Security Council’s demand in
resolution 487, passed on 19 June 1981, that "Israel urgently … place
its nuclear facilities under IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency]
safeguards" [5]. 27 years
later, Israel still hasn’t opened its nuclear facilities to IAEA
inspection, nor is there any noticeable pressure from the EU to make it
do so, let alone disarm in order to produce a nuclear free zone in the
Middle East, which parties to the Barcelona Declaration are supposed to
"pursue".

By contrast, Iran’s nuclear facilities, including its uranium enrichment
facilities, are open to IAEA inspection. It is worth noting that,
after extensive inspection in Iran, the IAEA has found no evidence that
Iran has a nuclear weapons programme, or ever had one. By
contrast, Israel has possessed nuclear weapons and the means of
delivering them for around 40 years. It is estimated that today
Israel has around 200 nuclear warheads and various delivery systems,
including by submarine-launched missiles. It is capable of wiping
Iran, and every Arab state, off the map at the touch of a button.

Strange that the EU is actively pressuring Iran about its nuclear
activities, but not Israel, despite the requirement in its partnership
agreement with Israel to "pursue a mutually and effectively verifiable
Middle East Zone free of weapons of mass destruction".

1.5 Israeli breaches of the
Barcelona Declaration today

Today, Israel is still contravening the terms of the Euro-Mediterranean
Partnership as laid down in the Barcelona Declaration in a variety of
ways, much as it was doing in 1995.

The West Bank and Gaza remain under Israeli military control, as do
parts of Lebanon and Syria, and East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights
remain annexed. Today, Israel is violating even more Security
Council resolutions requiring action by it and it alone (see Appendix
C). The building of Jewish settlements on occupied Arab land
continues apace, contrary to Security Council resolutions and the total
number of Jewish settlers on occupied Arab land is now around 500,000.

Since 1995, Israel has added to its illegal activity as an occupying
power by building a wall in the West Bank. In July 2004, the
International Court of Justice declared (see Appendix D):

"A. The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying
Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around
East Jerusalem, and its associated régime, are contrary to international
law;

"B. Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of
international law; it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the
works of construction of the wall being built in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, to
dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated, and to repeal or
render ineffective forthwith all legislative and regulatory acts
relating thereto, in accordance with paragraph 151 of this Opinion;"

Israel has categorically refused to comply with this ruling by the Court
– and has continued to build the wall, contrary to its obligation in the
Barcelona Declaration to act in accordance with its obligations under
international law.

Israel’s use of force, and threat to use force, contrary to Article 2.4
of the UN Charter, continues unabated. On 6 September 2007, an
Israeli aircraft entered Syrian airspace and bombed a building allegedly
housing a nuclear facility (which is not obviously compatible with the
principle of settling disputes with a partner by peaceful means, as
required by the Barcelona Declaration). Israeli aircraft regularly
enter Lebanese airspace and violate Lebanese sovereignty, and hardly a
day passes without a member of the Israeli government threatening to
attack Iran.

One might think that this continued contempt shown by Israel for the
principles enshrined in the Declaration establishing the partnership
might lead the EU to question Israel’s suitability as a partner.
But, on the contrary, on 16 June 2008, the EU decided to "upgrade" its
partnership with Israel.

2 The Euro-Med
Agreement

Section 2 outlines the human rights clause in the Euro-Med Agreement,
signed by Israel in 1995. It cites UN, EU and Irish
government sources, who all categorically state that Israel has breached
international humanitarian law by its economic strangulation of Gaza.
It concludes that the EU has turned a blind eye to Israel’s
contravention of human rights obligations under the Euro-Med Agreement.

2.1 The Euro-Med human rights
clause

In November 1995, Israel signed an Association Agreement
[6] with the EU under the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership. This
is commonly known as the Euro-Med Agreement. It gave Israel
privileged access to the EU market from 2000. Today, about 33% of
Israel’s exports are to the EU and 37% of its imports are from the EU
(amounting to €9.8 billion and €13.8 billion, respectively, in 2006).

"Relations between the Parties, as well as all the provisions of the
Agreement itself, shall be based on respect for human rights and
democratic principles, which guides their internal and international
policy and constitutes an essential element of this Agreement."

That states plainly that human rights compliance by Israel is an
"essential element" of the Agreement – not an optional element, nor a
desirable element, but an essential element.

2.2 Israeli breaches of
international humanitarian law

There isn’t the slightest doubt that Israel has continuously failed to
live up to these obligations, the most recent example being its economic
strangulation of the people of Gaza in 2007/8. Of this, John
Holmes, UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and
Emergency Relief Coordinator, told the Security Council on 26 February
2008:

"… the effective Israeli isolation of Gaza is not justified, given
Israel’s continuing obligations to the people of Gaza. It amounts to
collective punishment and is contrary to international humanitarian
law." [7]

Collective punishment is contrary to Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva
Convention, which states:

"No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not
personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of
intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited."
[8]

The EU itself has described the economic strangulation of Gaza as
"collective punishment", External Relations Commissioner Benita
Ferrero-Waldner saying on 21 January 2008:

"I am against this collective punishment of the people of Gaza. I urge
the Israeli authorities to restart fuel supplies and open the crossings
for the passage of humanitarian and commercial supplies."
[9]

"I remain deeply concerned about the worsening humanitarian situation in
Gaza. It is unacceptable that Israel should isolate the people of Gaza
and cut off essential supplies in order to exert pressure on them to
reject Hamas. I agree with the United Nations that this constitutes
collective punishment and is illegal under international humanitarian
law."
[10]

2.3 EU fails to act on Israeli
breaches

So, the UN, the EU and Ireland are of the firm opinion that, by its
economic strangulation of Gaza, Israel has violated international
humanitarian law. And it is not as if this economic strangulation
of Gaza is a momentary lapse from an otherwise unblemished record of
human rights compliance. On the contrary, the collective
punishment of the people of Gaza is the openly acknowledged policy of
the Israeli Government that has been in operation, to a greater or
lesser extent, for years. Famously, when Israel limited commercial
shipments of food into Gaza in 2006, a senior government adviser, Dov
Weisglass, explained that "the idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet
but not to make them die of hunger"
[11].

There is not the slightest doubt that, by its economic strangulation of
Gaza in 2007/8, Israel breached its human rights obligations under
Article 2 of the Association Agreement, obligations that are stated to
be an "essential element" of the Agreement. If Article 2 is to be
taken seriously, then the Agreement should be suspended.

But, yet again, the EU turned a blind eye to Israel’s contravention of
obligations under an EU-Israel agreement.

3 The European
Neighbourhood Policy (ENP)

Section 3 describes the upgrade of EU relations with Israel in 2004,
namely, its admission as a partner within the European Neighbourhood
Policy. It cites reports published by the European Commission
which describe Israel’s discrimination against its Arab minority and its
breaches of international humanitarian law in its treatment of
Palestinians within the Occupied Territories. Despite these
departures from European values, and despite a plea from Palestinian
Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, the EU decided to further upgrade its
relationship with Israel within the ENP in June 2008.

3.1 Purpose of the ENP

A further upgrade in EU-Israel relations took place in 2004, when Israel
became a "partner" in the EU’s European Neighbourhood Policy
[12].
This encompasses both the EU’s southern neighbours that were already in
the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership and its Eastern European neighbours.

The EU provides money for projects under the ENP, €5.6 billion in total
being allocated for the period 2007-10. However, because of
Israel’s relatively advanced state of economic development, a very small
amount of this – €9 million – is specifically allocated to it (see
European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument
[13]). Clearly, Israel’s reasons for participating in the ENP
are political rather than economic.

EU relations with other states under the ENP are supposed to be tailored
to the honouring of human rights and other obligations. As the ENP
website says:

"The EU offers our neighbours a privileged relationship, building upon a
mutual commitment to common values (democracy and human rights, rule of
law, good governance, market economy principles and sustainable
development). The ENP goes beyond existing relationships to offer a
deeper political relationship and economic integration. The level of
ambition of the relationship will depend on the extent to which these
values are shared."

Despite Israel’s manifest failure to meet its obligations under earlier
agreements with the EU, Israel was in the first tranche of 7 states with
which the EU agreed ENP "action plans" in December 2004.

3.2 Israeli discrimination
against its Arab minority

The "action plan" for Israel
[14] was based on a European Commission report on Israel
[15] dated May 2004. One might expect that this would have
examined Israel’s human rights record closely in order to determine
whether or not Israel was fit for an ENP relationship. And it
does, to a degree: in a 24-page document, there are a few paragraphs
that comment on (a) discrimination against Israeli Arabs and (b) Israeli
action in the Occupied Territories.

On discrimination against Israeli Arabs, the document says:

"The Arab minority, Muslim, Christian and Druze, makes up almost 20% of
the Israeli population. Although the Declaration of Independence
proclaims equality for citizens, Israeli legislation contains laws and
regulations that favour the Jewish majority. … As highlighted by
an Israeli Commission report presented in 2003 ("Or Commission"), the
Arab minority also suffers from discrimination in many areas including
budget allocations, official planning, employment, education and health.
… The Arab minority is severely affected by the Nationality and Entry
into Israel Law of 2003, suspending for a renewable one-year period, the
possibility of family reunification, subject to limited exceptions.

"About 100,000 Arabs (Bedouins), mostly in the Negev, live in villages
considered illegal by the State. …" (p 10)

"According to the Israeli poverty definition, about 14% of the Israeli
households were living in poverty in 2001, and the share is expected to
have risen in the following years. Figures are higher among the
Arab minority (where 45% of the families fell in the poverty category)."
(p 16)

One might have thought that a state which, throughout its existence, has
deliberately engaged in religious discrimination against its Arab
minority would be deemed unfit by the EU for an ENP relationship.
Root and branch opposition to religious discrimination is surely a
fundamental European value.

And it’s not as if Israel has taken steps to eliminate, or even
mitigate, this discrimination since 2004. In April 2008, the
European Commission published a report entitled Implementation of the
European Neighbourhood Policy in 2007: Progress Report Israel
[16]. Here is what it says on this issue:

"The promotion and protection of the Israeli Arab minority did not
advance significantly during the reporting period [my emphasis],
particularly in areas like land allocation, housing, planning, economic
development, investment in social infrastructure and justice. A number
of initiatives were launched in the field of justice and education but
results were limited. The Arab education system continued to lag behind
Jewish education. A clear strategy for land allocation to Israeli Arabs
remains to be adopted. In March 2007, the UN Committee for the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) published a report on the
situation of the Israeli Arab minority and asked the Israeli government
to take significant measures to promote minority rights in the
above-mentioned areas." (p 3)

3.3 Israeli action in the
Occupied Territories

On Israeli action in the occupied territories, the European Commission
report from May 2004 says:

"… In August 2003 the [United Nations] Committee [for Human Rights]
reiterated its concerns at the increasing extent of human rights
violations in those territories, particularly through military
operations, the obstruction of freedom of movement and house
demolitions. The EU recognises Israel’s right to protect its citizens
from terrorist attacks. It has urged the Government of Israel, in
exercising this right, to exert maximum effort to avoid civilian
casualties and take no action that aggravates the humanitarian and
economic plight of the Palestinian people. It has called on Israel to
abstain from any punitive measures which are not in accordance with
international law, including extrajudicial killings and destruction of
houses." (p 8)

It is difficult to believe that these few sentences constitute the full
extent of what the EU has to say about the misery Israel has inflicted
on Palestinians in 40 years of occupation. Even so, one might have
thought that the evidence presented in them was sufficient to render
Israel unfit in the eyes of the EU for an ENP relationship.
Surely, the EU cannot be said to have common values with a state that
engages in "extrajudicial killings and destruction of houses".

Have matters improved since 2004? The European Commission progress
report from April 2008 says:

"Issues raised in the framework of the political dialogue included inter
alia: the peace process, the situation in the Middle East, the situation
of the Arab minority in Israel, restrictions of movement in West Bank
and Gaza Strip, the construction of the separation barrier,
administrative detentions, the dismantling of outposts, the envisaged
expansion of certain Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem, more
checkpoints. Little concrete progress has however been achieved on the
issues as such [my emphasis]. In 2007 the fatalities resulting
from conflict-related incidents were 377 Palestinians (compared to 643
in 2006) and 13 Israelis (compared to 27 in 2006)." (p5)

3.4 The EU ignores plea by
Palestinian Prime Minister

So, according to the Commission report of April 2008, little progress
had been made towards the fulfilment of important objectives in the ENP
Action Plan.

A reasonable person might conclude that it was time for the EU to put
its foot down and insist that its relations with Israel be frozen until
such times as Israel took action to address these issues. The
Palestinian Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, thought so and, on 4 June
2008, wrote a letter saying so to the Prime Minister of each of the 27
member states of the EU, to José Manuel Barroso, the President of the
European Commission, to Javier Solana, the EU High Representative for
the Common Foreign and Security Policy, to Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the
Commissioner for External Relations, and to Hans-Gert Pöttering, the
President of the European Parliament.

He wrote:

"It has come to my attention that the European Union is contemplating
upgrading its relationship with Israel, including in the political and
economic spheres, and that the Council may take a decision on this
matter in its June 16th meeting.

"I am writing you to register my deep reservations concerning such an
upgrade while Israel continues to systematically violate Palestinian
human rights and flaunt its international obligations, including certain
of its commitments to the EU."
[17]

In his letter, Salam Fayyad went on to detail Israeli violations.
But, despite the fact that the European Commission in its report of
April 2008 gave weight to his case, the EU leaders to whom he had
written ignored his request, turning a blind eye to Israel’s failure to
meet its obligations, and on 16 June 2008, the EU decided to "upgrade"
its relations with Israel.

4 The Agreement on
Movement and Access (AMA)

Section 4 outlines the commitments contained in the Agreement on
Movement and Access, promoted by the Middle East Quartet, of which the
EU is a member. It shows that the promise made to Palestinians
that the Rafah crossing from Gaza to Egypt would be free from Israeli
control has not been fulfilled, and nor has any of the other promises
about movement and access in the Agreement.

4.1 The Rafah crossing into
Egypt

In November 2005, with the signing of the Agreement on Movement and
Access
[18] by Israel and the Palestinian Authority, Palestinians in Gaza
were promised access to the outside world free from Israeli control
through a border crossing to Egypt at Rafah.

The agreement was promoted by the Middle East Quartet (US, EU, Russia
and the UN Secretary General), so the EU had a role in bringing it
about. It also had a role in the implementation of the agreement
in respect of the Rafah crossing, by providing a small force (EU BAM
Rafah) to monitor the operation of the crossing.

Commenting on this when the Agreement was announced, Condoleezza Rice
said:

"… for the first time since 1967, Palestinians will gain control over
entry and exit from their territory. This will be through an
international crossing at Rafah … ."
[19]

And Javier Solana reinforced this promise on behalf of the EU:

"This is the first time that a border is opened and not controlled by
the Israelis. … So as you can imagine, this is a very important step …."

This promise to the Palestinians has not been fulfilled. In
practice, Israel has had a veto on the opening of the Rafah crossing.
The EU has consistently refused to send EU BAM Rafah personnel to open
the crossing when Israel doesn’t want it open.

The EU BAM website states that the crossing "can only be opened by
agreement between the Parties"
[20], in other
words, the EU accords Israel a veto over its opening. This is in
flat contradiction to the promise made by Javier Solana that the
crossing is "not controlled by the Israelis".

4.2 Other AMA promises

This promise made to Palestinians by Javier Solana on behalf of the EU
has not been honoured. It should be honoured. And so should
the other promises made in the Agreement on Movement and Access:-

other crossings for people and cargo between Israel, Gaza and the West
Bank will be expanded
regular bus and truck convoys between the West Bank and Gaza
the reduction of obstacles to movement on the West Bank
a seaport and airport at Gaza

None of these promises to Palestinians has been fulfilled. They
should be fulfilled.

5 Conclusions

This submission has produced compelling evidence that the EU has
consistently turned a blind eye to Israel’s failure to fulfil its
obligations in EU-Israel partnership agreements – and consistently
upgraded its relationship with Israel despite its failure to fulfil its
obligations in existing agreements. These obligations are not
trivial matters. On the contrary, they are of the utmost
importance to a just settlement in the Middle East.

For example, the Barcelona Declaration, which established the
Euro-Mediterranean Partnership in 1995, obliges signatories to "act in
accordance with the United Nations Charter".

Article 2.4 of the Charter forbids the acquisition of territory by
force. Had the EU enforced that obligation with respect to Israel,
it would have refused to enter into the Partnership until such times as
Israel had relinquished all the territory it had acquired by force, and
was occupying by force. That was the principle the EU applied to
entering into a partnership with Russia in September 2008, when Russia
was occupying parts of Georgia by force.

Article 25 of the Charter requires UN member states to "to accept and
carry out the decisions of the Security Council". Today, Israel is
in violation of over 30 Security Council resolutions requiring action by
it and it alone, demanding, amongst other things, that it

cease building Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, including
in Jerusalem

reverse its annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights

open its nuclear facilities to IAEA inspection.

As we said, these obligations in EU-Israel partnership agreements are of
great importance. It is vital that the EU insist that Israel
fulfil these, and the other obligations, that are set out in this
submission. If Israel refuses to do so, then the case for the EU
terminating the partnership agreements is overwhelming.

Appendices

A Milestones in
EU-Israel relations

1975: Israel signs an economic co-operation agreement with the
European Community.

1981: The Delegation of the European Commission to the state of
Israel officially opens.

1995: Israel signs the Barcelona Declaration, which established
the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership as a framework for political,
economic and social co-operation between the EU and states in the
Mediterranean region.

1995: Israel signs an Association Agreement under the
Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, which granted it privileged access to
the EU market in 2000.

1996: Israel becomes the first non-EU state to take part in the
EU’s scientific and technical research programme.

2004: Israel signs an agreement with the EU, allowing it to
participate in Galileo, the EU’s project for a Global Satellite
Navigation System.

2004: Israel becomes a partner in the European Neighbourhood Policy
agreeing an Action Plan with the EU covering activity in political,
economic and social fields.

2008: The EU decides to further "upgrade" its relations with Israel.

B Israel’s
contravention of the UN Charter

Article 2.4 of the UN Charter states:

"All [UN] Members shall refrain in their international relations from
the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent
with the Purposes of the United Nations."
[3]

Throughout its existence as a state, Israel has contravened this Article
of the UN Charter on many occasions, by threatening or using force
against its neighbours - and relentlessly expanded the area under its
control.

IN NOVEMBER 1947, the UN General Assembly proposed that Palestine be
partitioned. If Jewish leaders had accepted this UN partition
plan, Israel would today consist of about 56% of the land area of
Palestine, and Jerusalem would be under international control.
That’s what the UN General Assembly recommended in Resolution 181,
passed on 29 November 1947. But they didn't.

Instead, the area allocated by the UN General Assembly for a
Jewish state was expanded by force to include 78% of Palestine, even
though at the time Jews made up only about a third of the population of
Palestine as a whole and owned a mere 6% of the land. To ensure
that Jews were numerically dominant in the new Jewish state, nearly all
the Arabs — around 750,000 — were expelled from it into the rest of
Palestine and the surrounding Arab states, where they and their
descendants live today [21]. Over 500 Arab villages were destroyed
so that those expelled had no homes to return to.

IN OCTOBER 1956, Israel entered into a secret arrangement with the UK
and France, who wished to seize the Suez Canal, whereby Israel invaded
Egypt and by so doing provided the pretext for the UK and France to
"intervene" and occupy the Canal Zone, ostensibly to protect the Canal.
The conspirators were forced to withdraw by the US. This action
was contrary to Article 2.4 of the UN Charter.

IN JUNE 1967, Israel attacked Egypt, Jordan and Syria, forcibly
occupying the remaining 22% of Palestine (the West Bank, including East
Jerusalem, and Gaza), plus portions of Egyptian territory (the Sinai
Peninsula) and Syrian territory (the Golan Heights). These actions
were contrary to Article 2.4 of the UN Charter.

The Sinai remained under Israeli military occupation until the Camp
David Accords over a decade later. The West Bank and Gaza remain
under Israeli military occupation today. The Golan Heights and
East Jerusalem were subsequently annexed.

Israel proceeded to build Jewish settlements in the areas it occupied,
contrary to Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. It has
continued to do so despite Security Council demands (in resolutions 446,
452 and 465) that it cease building settlements and remove those it has
built.

Likewise, Israel has refused to comply with Security Council demands
that it reverse its annexation of East Jerusalem (in resolutions 252,
267, 271, 298, 476 and 478) and of the Golan Heights (in resolution
497).

Israel has also refused to comply with the ruling of the International
Court of Justice in July 2004 that it "cease forthwith the works of
construction of the wall being built in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle
forthwith the structure therein situated and to repeal or render
ineffective forthwith all legislative and regulatory acts relating
thereto" (see Appendix D).

More than 40 years later, the West Bank and Gaza remain under Israeli
military control, the building of Jewish settlements on occupied Arab
land continues apace, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights remain
annexed – and the Wall lengthens daily.

IN 1978, AND AGAIN IN 1982, it attacked Lebanon and occupied parts of it
militarily until 2000. These actions were contrary to Article 2.4
of the UN Charter. For over 20 years, it ignored the Security
Council demand (in resolution 425, passed on 19 March 1978) that called
upon it "immediately to cease its military action against Lebanese
territorial integrity and withdraw forthwith its forces from all
Lebanese territory". It finally withdrew its ground forces from
Lebanon (apart from Shebaa Farms), because of military pressure from
Hezbollah.

ISRAEL’S USE OF FORCE, and threat to use force, contrary to Article 2.4
of the UN Charter, continues unabated. On 6 September 2007, an
Israeli aircraft entered Syrian airspace and bombed a building allegedly
housing a nuclear facility; Israeli aircraft regularly enter Lebanese
airspace and violate Lebanese sovereignty; and hardly a day passes
without a member of the Israeli government threatening to attack Iran –
all actions that are contrary to Article 2.4 of the UN Charter.

C UN Security Council
resolutions contravened by Israel

Israel is contravening over 30 UN Security Council resolutions
[5], dating
back to 1968, resolutions that require action by it and it alone
[22].
This doesn’t include resolutions violated by Israel for a number of
years that have subsequently been implemented, such as those dealing
with Israel’s 20-year military occupation of southern Lebanon.

In these resolutions, the Security Council demands action by Israel on,
amongst other things:-

(1) Jewish settlements in occupied territories
Resolution 446, passed on 22 March 1979, demands that Israel cease
building Jewish settlements in the territories it has occupied since
1967, including in Jerusalem, and that it remove those already built.
Paragraphs 1 & 3 state:

[The Security Council]
1. Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing
settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since
1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to
achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

3. Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide
scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its
previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would
result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and
materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories
occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to
transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab
territories;"

The Fourth Geneva Convention bans the planting of settlers on territory
under occupation. Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Convention
states:

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own
civilian population into the territory it occupies."
[8]

Israel’s failure to comply with this resolution prompted further
resolutions – 452 on 20 July 1979 and 465 on 1 March 1980 – demanding
compliance.

(2) The annexation of East Jerusalem
Resolution 252, passed on 21 May 1968, demands that Israel reverse its
annexation of East Jerusalem. Paragraphs 2 & 3 state:

[The Security Council]
2. Considers that all legislative and administrative measures and
actions taken by Israel, including expropriation of land and properties
thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem are invalid
and cannot change that status;
3. Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all such measures already taken
and to desist forthwith from taking any further action which tends to
change the status of Jerusalem;

Israel’s failure to comply with this resolution prompted further
resolutions – 267 on 3 July 1969, 271 on 15 September 1969, 298 on 25
September 1971, 476 on 30 June 1980, and 478 on 20 August 1980 –
demanding the reversal of its annexation of East Jerusalem.

(3) The annexation of the Golan Heights
Resolution 497, passed on 17 December 1981, demands that Israel reverse
its annexation of the Golan Heights, which were captured from Syria in
June 1967. Paragraphs 1 & 2 state:

[The Security Council]
1. Decides that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction
and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void
and without international legal effect;
2. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, should rescind forthwith
its decision;"

(4) Nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards
Resolution 487, passed on 19 June 1981, demands that Israel open its
nuclear facilities to inspection by the International Atomic Energy
Authority (IAEA). Paragraph 5 states:

[The Security Council]
5. Calls upon Israel urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA
safeguards".

By refusing to open its nuclear facilities to IAEA inspection, Israel is
violating this resolution.

Conclusion
It is important to emphasise that these resolutions place obligations on
Israel, and Israel alone, so it is within Israel’s power to implement
them of its own volition, without negotiation with the Palestinians or
with neighbouring states. It doesn’t need to negotiate with
anybody before ceasing settlement building, or undoing the annexation of
East Jerusalem or the Golan Heights, or opening its nuclear facilities
to IAEA inspection.

Had Israel wished to do so, it could have implemented these resolutions
at the time they were passed by the Security Council, or at any time
since. Had Israel done so, the political landscape in Palestine
would have been transformed.

D The International
Court of Justice on the Wall

On 8 December 2003, the UN General Assembly passed resolution ES-10/14
requesting the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to give an Advisory
Opinion on the following question:

"What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the
wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as
described in the report of the Secretary-General, considering the rules
and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva
Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly
resolutions?"
[5]

The Court agreed to the request and delivered the Advisory Opinion
(entitled Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory
[23]) on
9 July 2004. The key points of the Opinion are:

A. The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying
Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around
East Jerusalem, and its associated régime, are contrary to international
law;

B. Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of
international law; it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the
works of construction of the wall being built in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, to
dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated, and to repeal or
render ineffective forthwith all legislative and regulatory acts
relating thereto, in accordance with paragraph 151 of this Opinion;

C. Israel is under an obligation to make reparation for all damage
caused by the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem;

D. All States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal
situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render
aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such
construction; all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention
relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12
August 1949 have in addition the obligation, while respecting the United
Nations Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel
with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention;

Regrettably, Israel has categorically refused to comply with these
obligations and has continued to build the wall.

Israel has maintained this recalcitrant stance despite a near unanimous
demand by the international community that it complies. In
resolution ES-10/15, passed on 2 August 2004, the UN General Assembly
demanded that "Israel, the occupying Power, comply with its legal
obligations" as laid down by the Court
[5]. This resolution was passed by 150 votes to 6.
Ireland, and all other EU states, supported it. Only Australia,
Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau and the United States
opposed (representing only 5% of the world’s population).

The Court stated in its opinion:

"The United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the
Security Council, should consider what further action is required to
bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of
the wall and the associated regime."

Israel has ignored the action taken four years ago by the UN General
Assembly, with the support of all EU states. It is now time for
the EU to seek to persuade the Security Council to take action, as
requested by the Court.

Uruknet receives daily many hacking attempts. To prevent this, we have 10 websites on 6 servers in different places.
So, if the website is slow or it does not answer, you can recall one of the other web sites: www.uruknet.info www.uruknet.de www.uruknet.biz www.uruknet.org.uk www.uruknet.com www.uruknet.org - www.uruknet.it www.uruknet.eu www.uruknet.net www.uruknet.web.at.it

:: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.
We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own
that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
:: We always mention the author and link the original site and page of every article.